The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(EX) 85

CENVAT CREDIT RULES, 2004

Rule 9

Where show cause notice clearly revealed that case of Revenue against the assessee in the said Show Cause Notice was that of misstatement of facts and suppression of facts as well as misrepresentation of assessable value of the goods to the extent of Rs. 49,02,861, which was declared only at Rs. 13,93,827 even on the applicability of rule 9(1)(b), therefore, there was no merit in the contention raised by assessee that he was independently entitled to Cenvat Credit in respect of the CVD paid by it.

Cenvat credit - ''Product Screen Separator Drive'' - Undervaluation of goods -

Assessee imported ''Product Screen Separator Drive'' goods. Authorities, upon checking, found that the said goods were undervalued and, accordingly, served a Show Cause Notice on assessee, demanding additional Customs Duty along with confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty under section 112. Assessee paid the said sum but claimed the said amount as Cenvat Credit to the extent under the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, incorporated under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said claim of Cenvat Credit stood denied and refused by adjudicating authority by an Order after serving a Show Cause Notice on assessee. Assessing Authority held that under rule 9(1)(b), no credit was allowable where additional amount of duty was recoverable from manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods on account of any non-levy or short-levy by reason of fraud. Held: The case of the Revenue that even rule 9(1)(b) prohibits the credit of excise duty or customs duty in case the same has been paid and recovered from assessee on account of earlier non-levy or short-levy, by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, also has considerable force. The contents of Show Cause Notice in the present case, would clearly reveal that the case of Revenue against the assessee in the said Show Cause Notice was that of misstatement of facts and suppression of facts as well as misrepresentation of the assessable value of the goods to the extent of Rs. 49,02,861, which was declared only at Rs. 13,93,827 even on the applicability of rule 9(1)(b). There was no merit in contention raised by assessee that he was independently entitled to Cenvat Credit in respect of the CVD paid by it.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. :




IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com